- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:58:10 -0700
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Issue 89 Counter Proposal ========================= Summary ------- There is no problem, and no change should be made. Rationale --------- Some types of content are common enough on the web to be significant, and complex enough to not have a simple, obvious way to mark them up, but do not offer enough benefit to directly address their use-cases by adding to HTML. We can offer useful advice to authors in the HTML spec, promoting particular patterns for these types of content that are at least good enough. This has the potential to reduce author confusion for very little cost, and helps to ensure that complex content is marked up in a way that is widely usable, such as for accessibility purposes. Details ------- No change. Positive Effects ---------------- Authors receive good advice on how to mark up certain relatively complex types of content, thus increasing the chance that said markup is well-designed and as widely accessible as possible. By spreading this advice in a relatively official document such as the html spec, we increase its chance of being picked up by other tutorial and teaching sites, rather than those sites coming up with their own potentially inferior and conflicting advice. Negative Effects ---------------- By including such authoring advice in the html specification, we open ourselves to the possibility of "baking in" advice that may be later superseded by new best practices. However, the impact of this is relatively small. The advice given in the html spec is at least "good enough"; if better advice comes along in the future, the degree to which it is better is likely to be fairly small. Additionally, this section is guidance, not normative requirements for authors. If specific guidelines, perhaps mandated by law in particular contexts, contradict the advice given here, the author may follow those guidelines without fear of making their markup invalid. Finally, the advice given by this section can always be superseded, either informally by new best-practices that become commonly accepted, or more formally via the "Applicable Specifications" clause. The w3c may, for example, publish at some later date a more comprehensive markup-best-practices document that covers the limited cases given in the spec and further cases as well, without any significant conflict. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 18:59:05 UTC